My God...they are almost as bad as the stock RX8 dampers...
Thanks for the info!
FM
NC stock shock dyno
Well that explains a lot. BTW there has been some talk on the miata.net forums about more than one model of Bilsteins coming on the NC. I wonder if someone at Mazda or Bilstein noticed the goof-up and made a running change? Anyone driven an NC with sport suspension delivered this month?
I think this confirms my opinion that the NC will handle a lot better with a simple shock change. I have a set of double-adjustable Konis being built at the moment which hopefully I'll get by mid-January. Assuming that I get the shock dyno results with the shocks I'll go ahead and post them at that time.
BTW by saying that the Bilsteins are "longer" are you referring to travel or to the actual shock body length? Thankfully SCCA rules allow the extended length to be up to 1" less than stock, I'm wondering if it might not be best to make the Konis closer to the base model in length?
I think this confirms my opinion that the NC will handle a lot better with a simple shock change. I have a set of double-adjustable Konis being built at the moment which hopefully I'll get by mid-January. Assuming that I get the shock dyno results with the shocks I'll go ahead and post them at that time.
BTW by saying that the Bilsteins are "longer" are you referring to travel or to the actual shock body length? Thankfully SCCA rules allow the extended length to be up to 1" less than stock, I'm wondering if it might not be best to make the Konis closer to the base model in length?
Well that explains a lot. BTW there has been some talk on the miata.net forums about more than one model of Bilsteins coming on the NC. I wonder if someone at Mazda or Bilstein noticed the goof-up and made a running change? Anyone driven an NC with sport suspension delivered this month?
I think this confirms my opinion that the NC will handle a lot better with a simple shock change. I have a set of double-adjustable Konis being built at the moment which hopefully I'll get by mid-January. Assuming that I get the shock dyno results with the shocks I'll go ahead and post them at that time.
BTW by saying that the Bilsteins are "longer" are you referring to travel or to the actual shock body length? Thankfully SCCA rules allow the extended length to be up to 1" less than stock, I'm wondering if it might not be best to make the Konis closer to the base model in length?
I think this confirms my opinion that the NC will handle a lot better with a simple shock change. I have a set of double-adjustable Konis being built at the moment which hopefully I'll get by mid-January. Assuming that I get the shock dyno results with the shocks I'll go ahead and post them at that time.
BTW by saying that the Bilsteins are "longer" are you referring to travel or to the actual shock body length? Thankfully SCCA rules allow the extended length to be up to 1" less than stock, I'm wondering if it might not be best to make the Konis closer to the base model in length?
LET ME SHED A BIT OF LIGHT
Edit . . . I realize this would probably fit in better at miata.net, where people are complaining of being "ripped off" because the sport suspesion is softer. Oh well, info is info, and I don't feel like registering over there right now, so here it is anyway.
There seems to be a lot of hoopla on the web about this sport suspesion being softer than the stock suspension. While I haven't driven an NC, here's a bit of damper specific info that may help shed light on this data. Sorry for the long post . . .
1. Length
The stock Tokico's are twin tubes, and the bilstein's are monotubes. For a given shock travel, a monotube will always be longer, because the pressurized gas chamber is BELOW the portion of the shock used for suspension travel. In a twin tube, the gas chamber is located in the outer tube, concentric to the inner tube where the rod strokes. Conversely, for a given piston diamater, a twin tube shock will ALWAYS have a larger OD. Mazda simply determined that the benefits of a monotube were worth the loss of suspension travel. This is very common on vehicles where one version has twin tubes and a "sport" or "luxury" version has monotubes.
2. Damping Force
Again, this comes down to twin tube vs. monotube (and other things as well). For a given damping force curve (peak force vs. peak velocity, as shown above), twin tubes will have a different ride characteristic than monotubes. This is due to many factors, but remember that the curve above is only a very small part of the shock performance pie. Those curves are best-fit lines that are created from a few PEAK data points among thousands taken during the test. Force vs. Displacement and Force vs. Velocity (not peak values) are also very important to determine how a shock performs.
Also, monotubes have much more internal friction than twin tubes, which essential reduces the amount of damping required to dissipate a given amount of energy. While this friction would be accounted for in the curves, different side-load conditions (stiffer bushings, different piston rod sizes, etc) could produce even higher fricition on the vehicle, reducing the level of necessary damping further.
In addition, keep in mind that these dampers were tuned by two different companies (under the guidance of Mazda), and that the suspension systems as a whole are different, therefore they could have different damping requirements. It COULD be that the stiffer anti-roll bars allow less rebound force while still maintaining good body control.
SO . . . the moral of the story is, don't jump to conclusions based soley on these dyno results. Mazda did not make a goof, they know very well what they are doing.
There seems to be a lot of hoopla on the web about this sport suspesion being softer than the stock suspension. While I haven't driven an NC, here's a bit of damper specific info that may help shed light on this data. Sorry for the long post . . .
1. Length
The stock Tokico's are twin tubes, and the bilstein's are monotubes. For a given shock travel, a monotube will always be longer, because the pressurized gas chamber is BELOW the portion of the shock used for suspension travel. In a twin tube, the gas chamber is located in the outer tube, concentric to the inner tube where the rod strokes. Conversely, for a given piston diamater, a twin tube shock will ALWAYS have a larger OD. Mazda simply determined that the benefits of a monotube were worth the loss of suspension travel. This is very common on vehicles where one version has twin tubes and a "sport" or "luxury" version has monotubes.
2. Damping Force
Again, this comes down to twin tube vs. monotube (and other things as well). For a given damping force curve (peak force vs. peak velocity, as shown above), twin tubes will have a different ride characteristic than monotubes. This is due to many factors, but remember that the curve above is only a very small part of the shock performance pie. Those curves are best-fit lines that are created from a few PEAK data points among thousands taken during the test. Force vs. Displacement and Force vs. Velocity (not peak values) are also very important to determine how a shock performs.
Also, monotubes have much more internal friction than twin tubes, which essential reduces the amount of damping required to dissipate a given amount of energy. While this friction would be accounted for in the curves, different side-load conditions (stiffer bushings, different piston rod sizes, etc) could produce even higher fricition on the vehicle, reducing the level of necessary damping further.
In addition, keep in mind that these dampers were tuned by two different companies (under the guidance of Mazda), and that the suspension systems as a whole are different, therefore they could have different damping requirements. It COULD be that the stiffer anti-roll bars allow less rebound force while still maintaining good body control.
SO . . . the moral of the story is, don't jump to conclusions based soley on these dyno results. Mazda did not make a goof, they know very well what they are doing.
Re: LET ME SHED A BIT OF LIGHT
JAZZMAN wrote:
There seems to be a lot of hoopla on the web about this sport suspesion being softer than the stock suspension. While I haven't driven an NC, here's a bit of damper specific info that may help shed light on this data. Sorry for the long post . . .
SO . . . the moral of the story is, don't jump to conclusions based soley on these dyno results. Mazda did not make a goof, they know very well what they are doing.
My biggest complaint regarding the NC's Bilstiens and soft springs is that they allow the wheels to hop about on uneven surfaces and the car feels terrible in quick transitions. Too much sloppy body roll. The NC feels weird and unnatural at the limit due to this soft "sport tuned" suspension. Not what one would expect from a well tuned suspension on a sports car. Many enthusiast publications reviewing the MX5 agree that the new NC is too soft regardless of stock or sport suspensions. Hard to deny so many enthusiasts and professional reviewers opinions about the practical application. That tells me Mazda missed the mark big with their sport suspension regardless of their engineered intent.
I think the primary point from an enthusiasts perspective is that the MX5 will benefit signifcantly from a properly dampened suspension and stiffer/shorter springs without giving up a street ride. Most who have installed better dampened suspensions have noted a signficant improvement over the sport suspension without much loss of ride quality.
But at the end of the day its not really a big deal. It appears there will be plenty of well designed aftermarket suspension alternatives to what Mazda and their partners have spec'd as OEM equipment for the sport tuned suspension.
Last edited by Jazzycat on Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: LET ME SHED A BIT OF LIGHT
What about DeCarbons (monotubes) such as Penskes, Fox, etc? They areJAZZMAN wrote: 1. Length
The stock Tokico's are twin tubes, and the bilstein's are monotubes. For a given shock travel, a monotube will always be longer,
not necessarily any longer than a twin tube. Certain designs of
monotubes may be longer i.e. those without a remote reservoir.
Also I was under the impression that the biggest difference between twin
and monotube functionaliity was that twins are generally (but not always)
emulsified (gas/oil) action vs. separate nitrogen and oil. Not sure I
agree with your statements on internal friction etc.
Don't flame me too much, just making some friendly (shocking)
conversation
Re: LET ME SHED A BIT OF LIGHT
You bring up good points, and you are right about the gas emulsification into the oil. That is a big factor in the mono- vs. twin- debate, but far from the only one. Let me break your statements apart, and I'll address them separately . . .
What about DeCarbons (monotubes) such as Penskes, Fox, etc? They are
not necessarily any longer than a twin tube. Certain designs of
monotubes may be longer i.e. those without a remote reservoir.
Also I was under the impression that the biggest difference between twin
and monotube functionaliity was that twins are generally (but not always)
emulsified (gas/oil) action vs. separate nitrogen and oil. Not sure I
agree with your statements on internal friction etc.
Don't flame me too much, just making some friendly (shocking)
conversation
1. For an OEM shock, we'll consider a vehilce where the twin tube is desiged as the base or volume model shock. Depending on the package space allowed and the suspension travel required, the TWIN TUBE shock is often designed such that the rod NEARLY bottoms out on the base valve (ie bottom of the shock) when the suspension reaches full bump. Now, consider that a monotube would have to physically fit in the same package length between the upper and lower mounts (OEMS rarely move shock mounts to adapt different shocks on the same vehicle). The ONLY way to package the gas chamber in such a case is to either:
A. Reduce rebound travel (shorter rod)
B. Reduce bump travel (longer body)
C. Remote reservoir or piggyback design
Option C is quite rare in the OEM world because it adds about 50-70% to the cost of the damper. As the math works out, the most efficient way is actually a small reduction in bump AND rebound travel, but that's not always the way they do it. Condsidering an OEM case, this is 100% the explanation for the longer body on the monotube. There is no other really reason why it would be this way, especially considering the longer body is more expensive.
On a race car, things are quite different, because remote reservoirs are common, and often, race cars and race shocks are designed withOUT the compromises in packaging that OEM vehicles are designed with.
2. Monotubes ALMOST always have higher internal friction than twin tubes due to the way the (much) higher gas pressure reacts with the oil seal, which in turn reacts on the rod. In addition, Tokico shocks in general have relatively low friction amongst the OEM world.
No flaming at all . . . like I said, you bring up some good points. I'm all up for further discussion . . .